The Canton advocate. [volume] (Canton, D.T. [S.D.]) 1877-1897, 1887-11-03


would still be two states, Texas an(
California, that would exceed us il
area; divided there would be only 81,
states in all the union larger than eth
er North or South Dakota, viz: Texas
California, Colorado, Kansas, Minneso
ia and Nebraska. Now, if we compare
the influence any one of these states
have in national affairs with the intlu
ence of any of the smaller states, we
must admit (for history demonstrates
the fact) that it IS the smaller states
| that WELD the influence. California
and Texas, with their unwieldly proper.
tions, cut but a sorry figure in the
management of national affairs when
compared with such states as New
York, Illinois, Massachusetts, South
Carolina, or even Delaware. In short
the history of all states proves that a
great area does not give influence or
power.
Then. too, the influence the two eX-
ira senators would exert on commit
tees, and in other places other than on
the floor of the senate chamber, would
even exceed in Importance the extra
votes they could give, and it is moral
ly certain that four senator's could ac-
complish much more for this section
of the northwest than two.
Dakota divided would give each sec
ton an area of something over $4,000
square miles, either one of which
would be larger than any one state in
the union barring the six states above
named, and with two exceptions these
six states are almost nonentities in
national affairs.
The anti ti-divisionists, however, place
chief stress on the claim that to make
two states of Dakota means extrava-
gance; that large states are more
economical than small ones The fall
acy of this assertion is shown by the
following record, where the figures
show what it costs for each person in
the states named: -
LARGE STATES. PIa CAPITA.
New York ................ ..........$ 50 90
Texas ....... ! 50
(Texas derives an enormous taxtrom the sale OF
lnds. Otherwise it's tax would be pas great as that
of New York or Caiifornia.)
SMALL. STATES. PER CAPITA.
'ea"are ..- no s'a' 'a1 @
Wisconsin ..-.... -. ....s... !.........s oo
IOWA =. .-..--... ......'' -.....'''. ~
Minnesota -. ...-....-.. ...E.... ........ oO
vermont .........-.... oo
New hampshire .......... ........:...... oo
But important as are the consider
ations mentioned above, they are as
nothing compared with the absolute
necessity for division that exists with
in Dakota herself. When the terrific
ry was organized, in 1865, it was with
the express understanding that the vast
territory would be divided when ad-
mitted to statehood. TO this end all
public institutions have been duplicat
ed and every possible arrangement
made for the esta blshment of two
state governments. The direct benefits
that will accrue to both sections from
division are almost incalcuiable. The
interests of each section absolutely de-
mands division. South Dakota has in
terests which will be much hetter pro-
tected and fostered if she Is admitted
as a state by herself, and the same is
true of North Dakota. The members
Of the Legislature will have the inter-
ests committed to- their care greatly
concentrated compared to what they
would be if admitted as whole, and
as consequence these interests will
receive much more careful attention
than could be hoped for in an immense
state having conflicting interests; and
conflicting interests Dakota always has
had as territory, and always would
have as one state. Then, too, with di-
vision, the capital will be more easily
reached by the people who may have
business at the seat of government.
In short one state the size of either
North or South Dakota could confident
iy anticipate much greater things, ma
tionally and locally, than one great I'M
wieldly state could ever hope for,
Let every voter consult his own in
terests and the best good of Dakota and
deposit a ballot for division on Tuesday
next. Congress will hardly ignore the
the expression if only it is emphatic.
Make it very emphatic, -,.. ID.
The NO-license people OF the county
have made amendments for meetings.